Forum's opinion about Norman Schmidt aka Kranium affair

[Rolf]

IMO my reading is correct and therefore let's handle this in the known way, that we agree to disagree. NB I never said that he lied. I dont know your qualifications to know that for so sure. But this doesnt matter, let's both skip this topic. If you continue, please dont be surprised that I wont answer anymore. See you later in CTF.

[bob]

I see, Dan, you behave strictly by the rules, no matter what. I wonder what would happens if we ever meet toguetjher as I am the opposite.
As the Lord said, the law if for the man, not the man for the Law...

Amen
Fern

I know Dan personally, and he does not follow rules when there is a greater principle involved. That is just the opposite of what you are implying about his being a rigid slave to rules.

I admire the fact that he would treat each poster the same, without prejudice and I don't know what the alternative principle is that you would suggest. What you call rigid I call impartial.

As far as meeting up with Dan ... if this were to happen there would be no problem - you can be sure that he would treat you fairly and with respect and I think you would get along just fine because you are both nice people.

Please take a look at the subforum where I have shown the contrary. Of impartial one really cant speak and I can also show that we have another aspect. IMO, just IMO, Dann had the following case where he exchanged email with Fabien (Fruit) and Fabien stated along Dann that he couldnt see anything wrong so far with the particular program, but Dann still didnt defend Rybka author Vas which is at least sub-optimal.

Why must you continue to mangle discussions for your own agenda? Fabien did _not_ say what you are implying he said. He said that _he_ had no problem with someone taking his open-source program and modifying it. Which had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at the time.

Somewhere else I showed how Vas should be defended even if doubt would remain but because the doubts cant have judicial relevance. IMO Dann doesnt suit the relatively easy to follow logical argument that if decidedly or must we say determined some people with doubt choose to NOT lose money in courtcase then it's called for that NOT in a mean campaigning the person is still being harrassed as if being guilty of some dubious allegation but all know that in a court case the evidence wouldnt be sufficient to reach a punishing verdict.

In such cases it's decent and ethically optimal to then treat the person in question as if innocent which means it's by no means allowed to repeatedly and constantly tear him through the mud. Because that wouldnt even happen if the guy would have been convicted in a legal court case.

Just a last question from a foreigner. IMO it's questionable to deal with a person who calls himself Dann with two 'n'. I cant imagine of what real name that is derived. So, fine that you know him in personal but I would want to know someone too who speaks in a personally deregatory manner about another member. Again see in Forum Suggestions and Help here in CCC.

So that I can only confirm that I am siding with Fern who at least here in this case seems to have the superior and better argument. Saying that if you dont have undoutable proof you should treat everybody as if innocent, no matter what you personally or in private or as a member of a group of experts or as another programmer (like Dann) know in details. Because that should remain irrelevant. But if you act based upon such knowledge as if for you that would be speaking against someone but you still wouldnt take legal steps then you are intrigant and bigot but not honest. Nobody can excuse his own evil steps by a secret but privately known other evil of someone else, the evil steps you undertake remain your own evil - and this is what Fern is considering and he seems to have the decent look of a senior expert while others might also have experience but lack the ethical class. All this IMO of course.

[fern]

I am sure of that. My post had only an entertainment goal. Dan is a great guy and I am sure he knows when and where law apply, as you and me

My best
Fern
(still, sometimes, playing Socrates)

[Rolf]

Why must you continue to mangle discussions for your own agenda? Fabien did _not_ say what you are implying he said. He said that _he_ had no problem with someone taking his open-source program and modifying it. Which had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at the time.

Easy to answer this question.

At the time of the Strelka debate (and please bear in mind that for Norman Schmidt the Strelka was an indirect proof and a motif for him to start his clones) Dann came into the debate and reported what he had seen commented by Fabien. If this what Fabien had said in email to Dann wouldnt mean a thing of relevance at all then Dann is to be criticised not me. But also at the time nobody criticised Dann. So that I read him as if he would oppose those who made the fallacious Norman illogic on the base of Strelka.

Then I asked Dann explicitely why he then wouldnt make a clear defense for Vas. He didnt reply to me. So that it remained open like a puzzle to me what exactly Dann wanted to say with his declaration. Since he also had seen parts of the sources except the one of Rybka 1 beta. So that this was already the missing link because without the knowledge Dann couldnt really say anything at all.

So, that is the reason why I criticised Dann who seemed to clarify things with his email report about Fabien but since the Rybka1bettta source wasnt there, the reasoning had holes. But Dann could have given further explanation but for reason unknown he didnt do this.

Fact is, that because of this inclear situation Norman, IMO one of the critics of the anti-Vas team with Bob too, began his strategy by creating new clones to hit at Vas.

My reasoning is this, that if now Norman is defamed as if he were a cheater (see Olivier for example), then why are the supporters and collegues of Norman NOT criticised because they have not told Norman to better stop this strange indirect defamation of Vasik.

Instead you detected now that I am the one who follows his campaigns and agendas. Isnt this a bit strange to say the least? How can reasonably the one with the least expertise have the role of the biggest responsible in a dispute only because he asked whyy Dann denied a clear explanation of what this meant exactly what he has said about Fabien's email about Rybka 1 beta?

Are we now at the point again where you, Bob, want t declare, when it's forbidden to ask questions - because questions for you already are speaking for agendas? Why do you argue this way as a teacher? Isnt it true that questions per se cant be bad and wrong but only the answers could be false or misleading?

Months ago I asked you 2345, well they were MANY, questions via email and you answered all in depth. Why isnt it possible to ask open questions without being defamated as having vicious motives? Isnt this a true indication for bad teaching, if a teacher attacks his students(here lays) with such nonsense? rhetorical question because as I said see above there are no evil questions!

I am also in love with Socrates, Fern, as you can see.

It's also telling that Dann cant speak for himself to a lay and his naive questions. So that I am almost forced to state, what never was in any doubt, that Dann really is a very honest and experienced person. But the fact that he doesnt answer questions is also true. The reason why just interested me. And I apologize for my interest. I'm sorry for having that agenda and being too curious. I apologize also in the name of Socrates.

[bob]

Why must you continue to mangle discussions for your own agenda? Fabien did _not_ say what you are implying he said. He said that _he_ had no problem with someone taking his open-source program and modifying it. Which had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at the time.

Easy to answer this question.

At the time of the Strelka debate (and please bear in mind that for Norman Schmidt the Strelka was an indirect proof and a motif for him to start his clones) Dann came into the debate and reported what he had seen commented by Fabien. If this what Fabien had said in email to Dann wouldnt mean a thing of relevance at all then Dann is to be criticised not me. But also at the time nobody criticised Dann. So that I read him as if he would oppose those who made the fallacious Norman illogic on the base of Strelka.

Then I asked Dann explicitely why he then wouldnt make a clear defense for Vas. He didnt reply to me. So that it remained open like a puzzle to me what exactly Dann wanted to say with his declaration. Since he also had seen parts of the sources except the one of Rybka 1 beta. So that this was already the missing link because without the knowledge Dann couldnt really say anything at all.

So, that is the reason why I criticised Dann who seemed to clarify things with his email report about Fabien but since the Rybka1bettta source wasnt there, the reasoning had holes. But Dann could have given further explanation but for reason unknown he didnt do this.

Fact is, that because of this inclear situation Norman, IMO one of the critics of the anti-Vas team with Bob too, began his strategy by creating new clones to hit at Vas.

My reasoning is this, that if now Norman is defamed as if he were a cheater (see Olivier for example), then why are the supporters and collegues of Norman NOT criticised because they have not told Norman to better stop this strange indirect defamation of Vasik.

Instead you detected now that I am the one who follows his campaigns and agendas. Isnt this a bit strange to say the least? How can reasonably the one with the least expertise have the role of the biggest responsible in a dispute only because he asked whyy Dann denied a clear explanation of what this meant exactly what he has said about Fabien's email about Rybka 1 beta?

Are we now at the point again where you, Bob, want t declare, when it's forbidden to ask questions - because questions for you already are speaking for agendas? Why do you argue this way as a teacher? Isnt it true that questions per se cant be bad and wrong but only the answers could be false or misleading?

Months ago I asked you 2345, well they were MANY, questions via email and you answered all in depth. Why isnt it possible to ask open questions without being defamated as having vicious motives? Isnt this a true indication for bad teaching, if a teacher attacks his students(here lays) with such nonsense? rhetorical question because as I said see above there are no evil questions!

I am also in love with Socrates, Fern, as you can see.

It's also telling that Dann cant speak for himself to a lay and his naive questions. So that I am almost forced to state, what never was in any doubt, that Dann really is a very honest and experienced person. But the fact that he doesnt answer questions is also true. The reason why just interested me. And I apologize for my interest. I'm sorry for having that agenda and being too curious. I apologize also in the name of Socrates.

I'm not going to respond to most of that. But there was no "anti-vas team" around. All of us simply want to know the truth when something like this comes up. I now know the origin of Rybka, which is all I ever wanted to know. Vas can deal with the moral/ethical issues related to that however he chooses.

I only wanted to know the truth. This was my interest, and was reached in a satisfactory way. This wasn't the first time this has happened. It won't be the last, either.

[Rolf]

I'm not going to respond to most of that. But there was no "anti-vas team" around. All of us simply want to know the truth when something like this comes up. I now know the origin of Rybka, which is all I ever wanted to know. Vas can deal with the moral/ethical issues related to that however he chooses.

I only wanted to know the truth. This was my interest, and was reached in a satisfactory way. This wasn't the first time this has happened. It won't be the last, either.

What Is more normal than that an expert mega guru and professor wanted to know every detail in computerchess. If not you were a bad expert. Question appears however why you didnt show your interest when SHREDDER won some 5x the title. Wasnt that an interesting story too? Why not? Because it was a commercial program?

I agree that there never was a team against Vas. Let me correct that into a climate where a certain programmer with the best program on the market and a climate in what you forgot to raise your voice as expert and warn smaller fighters to _not_ enter into a mode of abuse in combination perhaps with blackmail after the scheme, if you would tell us, dear Vasik, then we are pretty sure that we wont ask these curiosity questions anylonger.

Finally I want to apologize to you personally. Since you were always the one who never hesitated to answer my many - often very laizistic and more interdisciplinary - questions which demonstrated that the magic of button technology and splitting hairs with test results, although very important, are not the sole purpose of the whole field. And that in the light of perhaps some millions of correspondents who have testified my English as practically un-decryptable. You are the proof that they either lied or have no reading talents or both.

Let me make some new friends with the following guideline. The curiosity of a researcher must end where the integrity and privacy of a human being is being deteriorated or spoiled somehow. That is why experiments with living humans are intolerable. This line was surpassed IMO in the examination of Rybka and author. Of course also with the mistreatment of LIST author Reul. Or, sorry, with Kasparov in 1997.

[bob]

I'm not going to respond to most of that. But there was no "anti-vas team" around. All of us simply want to know the truth when something like this comes up. I now know the origin of Rybka, which is all I ever wanted to know. Vas can deal with the moral/ethical issues related to that however he chooses.

I only wanted to know the truth. This was my interest, and was reached in a satisfactory way. This wasn't the first time this has happened. It won't be the last, either.

What Is more normal than that an expert mega guru and professor wanted to know every detail in computerchess. If not you were a bad expert. Question appears however why you didnt show your interest when SHREDDER won some 5x the title. Wasnt that an interesting story too? Why not? Because it was a commercial program?

Source was not available. There was not a large cadre of open-source programs around to copy from. Nobody seemed to have enough interest to do the work. In the more recent cast, the strelka stuff supplied the source unknowingly.

I agree that there never was a team against Vas. Let me correct that into a climate where a certain programmer with the best program on the market and a climate in what you forgot to raise your voice as expert and warn smaller fighters to _not_ enter into a mode of abuse in combination perhaps with blackmail after the scheme, if you would tell us, dear Vasik, then we are pretty sure that we wont ask these curiosity questions anylonger.

Finally I want to apologize to you personally. Since you were always the one who never hesitated to answer my many - often very laizistic and more interdisciplinary - questions which demonstrated that the magic of button technology and splitting hairs with test results, although very important, are not the sole purpose of the whole field. And that in the light of perhaps some millions of correspondents who have testified my English as practically un-decryptable. You are the proof that they either lied or have no reading talents or both.

Let me make some new friends with the following guideline. The curiosity of a researcher must end where the integrity and privacy of a human being is being deteriorated or spoiled somehow. That is why experiments with living humans are intolerable. This line was surpassed IMO in the examination of Rybka and author. Of course also with the mistreatment of LIST author Reul. Or, sorry, with Kasparov in 1997.

[Rolf]

Source was not available. There was not a large cadre of open-source programs around to copy from. Nobody seemed to have enough interest to do the work. In the more recent cast, the strelka stuff supplied the source unknowingly.

Unknowingly. By an alleged Russian with unknown identity. Why had nobody interest in re-compiling (?) SHREDDER? How come that even experts tried to insinuate that something with the bank of Chile was called bank robbery when the coup brought the alleged robbers something in the value of Fort Knox which a wealth 10 or 100 times the bank of Chile? Wasnt this for all the influence of the Hand of God? Or how do you explain the miracle of the growth of money? And finally if I am so clever and allegedly robbed the bank of Chile to get the wealth of Fort Knox, can I or should I be called a robber or better a genius? How else do you explain the 200 jump of Rybka rel to Fruit or Crafty?

(As I learned all pograms are partially robbed from Craftyanyway but nobody called it robbery. How come? If robbery is the secret of the whole field? If a clear break of the law then why does nobody run to court?)

Conclusion: the whole anti-Rybka debate is the same as if politicians are being called corrupt, in the sense that one can make them do what 'others' want, by lobby, with money. But where's the problem if politics does function this way? Of course this way you can always stir emotions of uninformed or bigot people. But the true principle of representative democracy is the practical business with decision making of favorite politicians.

[slobo]

I have see that on the new chess engine site the work and engines of Norman Schmidt have been banned for good.Even the sites where his engines were located are now inaccessible for further downloads.
What is the opinion in chess community about this state of affair.

Hi Miodrag,

I agree with banning Norman from CTF for some time, not exaclty with six months punishment, but I strongly oppose to the banning of this guy´s work and engines "for good". If he really was banned from some place for good it is an arbitrary and cruel sentence.

We should help that guy, not to persecute him without mercy. And he deserves our help because:

1. he is very talented
2. he likes very much computer chess
3. he gave us many engines to play with (I have not tested neither of them only because I had no enough time)

Regards. Slobo

He has not been banned, he has closed his own site himself.

And, he is not talented at all. What could he come up with? Replacing strings, disabling moduls, changing values of coefficients. Believe me, I could do that myself if I refreshed my rather poor C knowledge.
He did not even know that Crimson could play FRC... hahaha

Well, it was a good one, but...

I would like to see your cloning engines, and then to see you imroving them version after version.

Even if you were without any talent I would apreciate your love for all that your effort to create a better thing.

[gerold]

I have see that on the new chess engine site the work and engines of Norman Schmidt have been banned for good.Even the sites where his engines were located are now inaccessible for further downloads.
What is the opinion in chess community about this state of affair.

Hi Miodrag,

I agree with banning Norman from CTF for some time, not exaclty with six months punishment, but I strongly oppose to the banning of this guy´s work and engines "for good". If he really was banned from some place for good it is an arbitrary and cruel sentence.

We should help that guy, not to persecute him without mercy. And he deserves our help because:

1. he is very talented
2. he likes very much computer chess
3. he gave us many engines to play with (I have not tested neither of them only because I had no enough time)

Regards. Slobo

He has not been banned, he has closed his own site himself.

And, he is not talented at all. What could he come up with? Replacing strings, disabling moduls, changing values of coefficients. Believe me, I could do that myself if I refreshed my rather poor C knowledge.
He did not even know that Crimson could play FRC... hahaha

Well, it was a good one, but...

I would like to see your cloning engines, and then to see you imroving them version after version.

Even if you were without any talent I would apreciate your love for all that your effort to create a better thing.

I appreciate your interest in Norman.
I also think if he is that interested in computer chess he
will carry on and gain more info. in writing a chess program.
Others who have had a interest in chess have gone on
to writing a good program and opening a nice web site.

Best,

Gerold.